[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still think that AQ did 9/11 you should be in adult day care.
WMDs - no, that was just a lie. As far as I am aware no WMDs attributed to Iraq were used or found, so they can't be a false flag. You sure you know what "false flag" means?
No idea re: Gulf of Tonkin, don't know what it is. Let's say for argument's sake that whatever it is was a false flag operation. How's that relevant to the discussion of 9/11? I'm obviously not disputing that false flag operations are a real thing that exist. Are you sug
You’re not familiar with the general bringing anthrax to the United Nations are you
It’s relevant because you may or may not have an ignorant world view as to how conflicts are started
Is this the evidence you find compelling?
Well I'm convinced. Yeah I mean when you intend to ram a building with a plane you want to know about the security, by which Atta must of meant the anti aircraft measures of the office buildings, first and foremost. You want to ask U.S. Agriculture about the gun turrets and whatnot, so you can set the counter measures on the Boeing. And you want to get that information right from a U.S. government lo
one of the hallmarks of Western thought is that non-whites are just the dumbest people on the planet. this works bc it is in fact Westerners who are incredibly gullible.
I didn't say I thought it was the CIA. The government knowingly, continually, and brazenly lies to you. And often you find out it was a lie when the government later acknowledges it.
Trolly, how many times does someone have to lie to you before you stop believing every word they say?
Some people in power, I hypothesize, want to know how big of a lie they can tell you and still maintain credibility with you.
So can I get a straight answer? Do y
Hey Deucses, I'm still waiting on that thermite citation you were going to find.
It's more specific than that. Here you go, you're welcome:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
Just making up that Iraq had WMDs is not a false flag. Deploying WMDs and saying Iraq did it would be a false flag, but that didn't happen. The phrase literally originates from a combatant flying a flag other than their own for disguise.
It's more specific than that. Here you go, you're welcome:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
Just making up that Iraq had WMDs is not a false flag. Deploying WMDs and saying Iraq did it would be a false flag, but that didn't happen. The phrase literally originates from a combatant flying a flag other than their own for disguise.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona...
2. a deliberate misrepresentation of motives or identity
It's more specific than that. Here you go, you're welcome:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
Just making up that Iraq had WMDs is not a false flag. Deploying WMDs and saying Iraq did it would be a false flag, but that didn't happen. The phrase literally originates from a combatant flying a flag other than their own for disguise.
From your source.
A false flag operation is an act committed with the intent of disguising the actual source of responsibility and pinning blame on another party.
Colin Powell, the Bush govt and the UK govt literally made up evidence that saddam was making or had WMDs. Then Colin Powell went to the UN and paraded around a bunch of stuff and pretended it was anthrax or something.
I don't think there is any plausible definition of "false flag" under which lying about the weaponry an enemy has access to in order to justify war is a false flag. It's just not what it means. Maybe if you also planted the weapons, you might be able to, at a very big stretch, call it a false flag. But just lying about it, no.
You can try and shoehorn something that happened into the definition of that term, but ultimately, it's just not what it means. It's always used to mean an act of war or terror that is committed by one party then blamed on another.
I don't think there is any plausible definition of "false flag" under which lying about the weaponry an enemy has access to in order to justify war is a false flag. It's just not what it means. Maybe if you also planted the weapons, you might be able to, at a very big stretch, call it a false flag. But just lying about it, no.
Ok you’re right
From your source.
A false flag operation is an act committed with the intent of disguising the actual source of responsibility and pinning blame on another party.
Colin Powell, the Bush govt and the UK govt literally made up evidence that saddam was making or had WMDs. Then Colin Powell went to the UN and paraded around a bunch of stuff and pretended it was anthrax or something.
My brother in Christ, this is not how the term "false flag" works.
Sigh, we're going to have to do this like you're five. I've asked you the following 3 times now:
- Was Mohamed Atta on flight 11?
- Was Mohamed Atta an Al Qaida operative?
These are the questions you were asked, not anything about gun turrets or whatever you're bloviating about now. You can expand on your answers if you wish, but make sure to answer the questions, and try to not go off on a complete tangent about totally irrelevant bullshit
I don't need an editor. I don't care if you don't enjoy my writing style so there is no point in complaining about it.
To the questions- who knows? It's been said that the video imagery of who is allegedly him at the airports is inconclusive. Tenet himself testified to congress that he can't definitively put the alleged hijackers on the planes.
Was Atta AQ? I don't know. I looked at your link and what I quoted you was the evidence from wikipedia. I don't find it compelling.
You understand that the U.S. worked with AQ from it's origins, right? Are you familiar with their fighting the Russians with our support? U.S. intelligence just makes up groups or designates certain people as belonging to certain groups and the individuals might or might not exist or if they do exist they might or might not think of themselves as belonging to these groups. If the CIA wants someone to be in a group they just say they are in the group and no one can challenge it. The amount of conflicting and false information about these alleged hijackers is staggering.
I don't need an editor. I don't care if you don't enjoy my writing style so there is no point in complaining about it.
To the questions- who knows? It's been said that the video imagery of who is allegedly him at the airports is inconclusive. Tenet himself testified to congress that he can't definitively put the alleged hijackers on the planes.
So how'd the planes wind up flying into the WTC? Accident?
No he's not. There is no meaningful difference between planting something and just lying and saying it's there. I don't want to call this guy dumb, but I'll say he shouldn't be calling other people dumb.
Firstly, I said that planting it would still be very much a stretch as far as calling it a false flag. I'll go further and say that I don't think that planting evidence could reasonably be called a false flag.
Secondly, lol. There is no difference between me falsely reporting to the cops that you have a brick of coke in your trunk, and me planting a key of coke in your trunk? Luckily for me, I do not share your compunctions about calling you dumb.
No he's not. There is no meaningful difference between planting something and just lying and saying it's there. I don't want to call this guy dumb, but I'll say he shouldn't be calling other people dumb.
I didn’t wanna argue.
Firstly, I said that planting it would still be very much a stretch as far as calling it a false flag. I'll go further and say that I don't think that planting evidence could reasonably be called a false flag.
Secondly, lol. There is no difference between me falsely reporting to the cops that you have a brick of coke in your trunk, and me planting a key of coke in your trunk? Luckily for me, I do not share your compunctions about calling you
The cops are the ones saying the coke is there and then they arrested and killed a bunch of people over it.
Your example is lacking
I don't need an editor. I don't care if you don't enjoy my writing style so there is no point in complaining about it.
To the questions- who knows? It's been said that the video imagery of who is allegedly him at the airports is inconclusive. Tenet himself testified to congress that he can't definitively put the alleged hijackers on the planes.
Was Atta AQ? I don't know. I looked at your link and what I quoted you was the evidence from wikipe
Lol, so you think if you take a flight the only evidence of you being on that flight is surveillance camera footage, like driving a car on the highway? Have you ever travelled by airplane?
Anyway, this is getting a bit dull. Seems your only claim is that the official account is lies, you have no alternative, you have no explanations for the evidence that does exist, and you don't have any evidence of your own other than feels, vague claims of high school physics that didn't materialise, and some guy stacking cardboard boxes. Yawn.
I didn’t wanna argue.
The cops are the ones saying the coke is there and then they arrested and killed a bunch of people over it.
Your example is lacking
For ****'s sake. I am not arguing about what happened, I am explaining to you what it isn't called. It isn't called a false flag. You can call it something else. It's not a ****ing false flag.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona...
2. a deliberate misrepresentation of motives or identity
For ****'s sake. I am not arguing about what happened, I am explaining to you what it isn't called. It isn't called a false flag. You can call it something else. It's not a ****ing false flag.
Ok you’re right
Trolly you are missing the part where you can call me crazy and it actually is a credible charge. The planes could have been modified into drones. The technology was available. I don't know how it actually happened, but this is my guess. Whether Atta was on board or not the plane could have had its avionics altered to make it a drone guided by GPS. Yes that was possible at the time although not in practice (AFAIK).
Trolly you are missing the part where you can call me crazy and it actually is a credible charge. The planes could have been modified into drones. The technology was available. I don't know how it actually happened, but this is my guess. Whether Atta was on board or not the plane could have had its avionics altered to make it a drone guided by GPS. Yes that was possible at the time although not in practice (AFAIK).
Yo, genius logic bro, you heard of Occam's Razor?
We've got some known terrorists who took flight training on all the planes that crashed, eyewitness accounts, Al Qaida admits they did it, etc. etc. etc. etc., and Genius McLogicHead is all like: guys, it was drones.
